The Reliability of Logics - Term Paper Example

METAPHYSICS The Reliability of Logics in the Perspective of Ancient and Modern Philosophers TABLE OF CONTENTS Number Topic Pages Introduction To Logic 1 2 The Philosophical Outlook About Logical Reliability 2-9 3 Conclusion 10 1. INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC Logic is not merely a subject or philosophical discussion it is perhaps really more than a discussion or a subject. Logic is now days an emerging field that evolve through these philosophical views and now implemented in various sciences and fields for better productive results, for example Computer sciences is actually the application of analytical and decisional logic. Similarly automation an advancing concept in industries developed with the help and assistance of mathematical logical principles. Since microcontrollers are programmed through these logics, so everything and object that is used computationally and mathematically in any field whether research, medical, defense, communication, manufacturing industries etc are the outcome of the great science of logics. The details and explanations of Logics are not that alike throughout the history, perhaps the philosophers are constantly engaged in critical argumentations about logical principles and logical views. The ancient logic and the modern formal logic differ in various aspects, logic is perhaps a science and knowledge i.e. is always developing and growing for better. It should be kept in mind that the contemporary logic is the result of many philosophical views that develops time by time and era by era. Hence these philosophical views are not futile and it is worth understanding these views and discussions on logic. 2. THE PHILOSOPHICAL OUTLOOK ABOUT LOGICAL RELIABILITY The concept of philosophical logic started with the arrival of great philosopher Aristotle and it is the learning of arguments and reasoning. Aristotle’s six main works on logic is named as “Organon” in the Greek terminology. These were the first formal achievement on the subject of logics throughout the human history. In the modern age, modern logicians have proved falsification of some of Aristotle logical concepts. On the contrary the main focus of Aristotle’s logic was to investigate the working dynamics of inferential systems so as to provide a solution for argumentation. The philosophical perspective of different philosophers regarding the credibility of logic differs excessively. Some philosophers were of the idea that logic is gateway to reality while some other argued on this and they just keep logic to human endeavor for finding a truth, some other explained the gap between logic and reality as the flaw of human limitation, while some explained this gap understanding as a function that only God’s domain. Logic went through different ages, and several modification and up gradation. Different philosophers contributed in this science. Logic developed in every age and now this philosophical science has emerged in various other sciences like computation theories, mathematical solutions, inductions etc. Logics are not absolutely valid arguments or reasons, perhaps it a way of finding a solution. Logic is adopted in different meaning by different philosophers; however it arose from the basis of arguments and reasoning. Aristotle and other philosophers like Aquinas supported logic as a way of arguments; the biggest achievement of Aquinas was the proof of existence of God based on Aristotle logic. On the other hand few modern scholars and philosophers stand bit differently on this idea. Like Thomas Hofweber explained in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy similarly as logic is way of deducing things from given premises, but it does not encompass reason very well in his view. He further elaborated on this subject saying that theory of rationality is more appropriate for finding valid reasoning. He elaborated logic as method of inference; validity depends upon many features like mental state, premises, linguists and other representation. Rationality and rational solution are more relate to argumentation and reasoning. George Hayward Joyce also clarifies the concept of logic, according to him logic is not purely reasoning, He wrote in his book principles of logic as: “The science which directs the operations of the mind in the attainment of truth.” 1 This means that for reaching truth or the actual reality, logic can be one way of directing and providing a way forward to mind, logic itself is not pure reasons rather it is a set of operation for formulating mind one step forward, so logic itself is not reasons rather more appropriately as a set of formulations where one can reach a correct understanding of a reality, or a detailed approach to reach a conclusion based on judgments. Similarly John Poinsot, a theologian defines logic as “The art whose function is to direct the reason lest it err in the manner of inferring or knowing.”2 Now here John Pointson is clear that logic is a function of directing reasons, so that the reason might not be misunderstood. John manifestation about logic also supports the idea that logic is mainly a subject where direction is embedded in reasons so to infer or to know the unknown or at least to predict it by a developed skillful art. The famous philosopher Immanuel Kant was also of the idea of defining logic with the science of judgment. Thus Immanuel Kant also modified the logical concepts of Aristotle on this very basis. Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege the founder of modern logic also took the similar idea about logic. Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege defines logic as “The science of the most general laws of truth.” 3Here Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege is relating logic as a science of common regulations, so a science is a prospect where changes are made for betterment and it is not ultimate, therefore he shares the same opinion of other philosophers. The famous Islamic philosopher Averroes also differed with the opinion of Aristotle and interpreted logic as an instrument for judgment or an instrument for identifying and separating true and false. True and false is about an event’s affirmation or negation, the reliability of instrument is again a question and hence research and progress can be made to increase the reliability of the instrument logic according to him. James McCosh implicated logic as “laws of discursive thoughts”4. James destined logic as the combining formula of developed thoughts that might be different, but in combination by laws of logics they can be useful in understanding of an unknown reality. Isaac Watts the hymn writer said about logic; “The right use of reason in the inquiry after truth (Isaac Watts).”5 He meant that reasons are being used in logics to find solutions. In his view logic is the usage and handling of reasons not reasons, a level of truth can be attained by using these logics or ways of handling reasons. Isaac Watts viewed logic as an appropriate processing of existing reasons in finding the exact reality, therefore he nevertheless meant that logic is equal or analogous to reason. The Penguin Encyclopedia provides a more relevant enlightenment of logic as: “The formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning”.6 This explanation is valid because the modern formal logic focused on the logic because it is quite true that logic is actually study of different principles for valid inference. Now, as for which principle will be valid in a specific reality rests with rationality and critical thinking. Valid inference is the main objective but there is always a parameter of uncertainty left with it. Logic is no doubt a way for solving problems, but it is the human intelligence that can comprehend the problem and use a valid logical solution for a given problem. Now, as for the human intelligence it varies from person to person. Moreover it might be possible that a person really good in his intelligence in some specific realities but another person’s intelligence is more effective for other realities in which the first person is not good. Therefore intelligence is a function of human mind, previous knowledge and the surroundings. Intelligence matter a lot in logics, both are interactive while solving a given problem. Therefore it will be invalid saying logic directly as a pure reason itself. Thus by reviewing the arguments of different philosophers, logics are not its own purely reasons or arguments, there are other factors in finding a true reason or solution as well, but moreover these are tools which can be used for judgment or reasoning or results. The validity of inductive and deductive logic is doubtful. The Aristotle’s logic is primarily based on one main element deduction; according to Aristotle deduction is actually the case, in which few things have been assumed that makes the premise of the reason, and what result of that supposition is the necessity. This deduction is also called syllogism, Aristotle says: “A deduction is speech (logos) in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from those supposed results of necessity because of their being so.”7 The modern notion of logic does not contradict the old psychological point of view of Aristotle so far at the point of deduction. This can be easily comprehended by the fact that if event A (necessity) is the consequence of B and C (suppositions) then if B and C are true it is not viable for A to be false. The element of deduction seems alright as far as the modern notion of logic is concerned, but for modern arguments and reasoning there are things that surpass the arguments of Aristotle. For example Aristotle explicates clearly that the consequence or necessity of supposition or premises must be different from the parent suppositions. What if the consequence in reality is identical to any one of the premises?? Therefore there are things that are uncertain and ambiguous in some actualities if the traditional logical schemes are applied on those. Now as for Aristotle explication, consider an example of mother and father which are two premises for a consequence like child. We focus on one of the specific characteristics of mother and father like level of tolerance. It might be possible that father is less tolerant and mother is more tolerant, but the resultant child is also less tolerant very identical to his father in this characteristic, here in this reality this argument of Aristotle failed. But on the other hand in some cases the same logic can really work, if the child is totally different from the parent premises in this characteristic of tolerance this limitation of deduction according to Aristotle hold true. Therefore there are other factors as well that are defining the validity of the philosophical proposals. The two main logical schemes or instruments of traditional logic are deductive logic and inductive logic. Deduction is one element of argument and reason according to Aristotle and other philosophers, the other is induction. Deductive inference is also about a notion that if the variable ‘x’ is equal to variable ‘y’ and variable ‘y’ is equal to variable ‘z’ then the conclusion is ‘x’ is also equal to ‘z’, therefore deductive logic is basically related to given premises and concluding out from the given premise, whereas on the other end Inductive logic is the process of working out and concluding a result from a set of observations made on that subject. Deductive and inductive logical schemes are questioned by some of the philosophers on some very solid grounds. Deduction is also questioned on the basis of induction. Sextus Empiricus ancient philosopher questioned the process of induction. He questioned that how a specific set of observations can be universally applicable or what reliability is there that this set of observations will be valid for an upcoming reality. Sextus Empiricus wrote: “When they propose to establish the universal from the particulars by means of induction, they will effect this by a review of either all or some of the particulars. But if they review some, the induction will be insecure, since some of the particulars omitted in the induction may contravene the universal; while if they are to review all, they will be toiling at the impossible, since the particulars are infinite and indefinite.”8 Hume one of the Scottish philosophers, on the basis of circular reasoning declared it as a formal logical fallacy, the argument Hume was bit different to that of Sextus Empirius. According to Hume: “Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judges approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truth worthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.”9 Now this new theory of criterion possession does not only question inductive reasoning but it also doubts the deductive reasoning in a way that persons who are defining the premises of a deductive logic do not hold the criterion of truth, so if they do not hold the criterion of truth there defined premises can be invalid in such cases the result of such premises is most likely to be invalid. Some medieval philosopher like Al Ghazali defines the same criterion of truth absolutely exclusive for God and hence according to these medieval philosophers there is always an uncertainty and doubt in logic. Therefore the universals from few particulars are not always the true estimation about an event. It is likely that there is some level of unreliability that is coming out of logics. Perhaps in Al Ghazali’s view this doubt can be reduced and minimized. On the other hand there are philosophers who also tried to justify these arguments and to justify it; they tried to present some reasons. Duns Scotus was a famous scholar and a philosopher argues in a different way. His point was that events are not isolated from causes or previous history records, therefore according to him a finite set of observations are potential causes for any upcoming reality and will produce the same result of inductive reasoning. Duns Scotus used the notion of previous information to justify his point of view and concluded that the finite set of observations are enough justification to validate the universals rising out from particulars. 3. CONCLUSION By the above discussion of philosophical views, and the contrast of the understanding of different philosophers about logic, a better understanding about logic can be developed. Logics do not meant to be reasons itself, but these are formulations to reach an ending or consequence. Logic is very effective as far as the sciences of computer, mathematical models, operation research and robotics are concerned. But when it comes to societal applications as in the subject of sociology, psychology and others, there are many factors beyond the scope of logics and logical instruments. There are some limitations in logic, the opinion about logic that it does not necessarily reason well as of Thomas Hofweber and others are more convincing and forceful, because for examples that we have regarding the society, norms and human relationships the logical ideas appeared as failure. It is because logic is just an instrument for reaching a conclusion and such humanitarian subjects are so complex systems that logic cannot encompass the relationship in between and factorial entities that rests within those relationships. The relationship in logics and human societies should be developed further, but logic should not be applied everywhere. In some cases and realities feasibility analysis and rational thinking helps a lot while logic fails, whereas in the subjects that are concerned with algorithm with decision making logic can be helpful. Bibliography Aristotle. Prior Analytics. Trans. A. J. Jenkinson. n.d. Empiricus, Sextus. Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Trans. R.G. Bury. Loeb edn. London: W. Heinemann, 1933. Frege, G. Logic. 1897. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Organon. . Gensler, Harry. Introduction to Logic. Routledge, 2002. Joyce, G.H. Principles of Logic. London, 1908. McCosh, J. The Laws of Discursive Thought. London, 1870. Poinsot, J. Outlines of Formal Logic. ed. and transl. F.C. Wade. 1955. Watts, I. Logick. 1725. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Problem of induction. . Read More